C. Glaßer
A. L. Selman
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This article surveys results on disjoint NP-pairs, propositional proof systems, function classes, and promise classes|including results that demonstrate close connections that bind these topics together. We illustrate important links between the questions of whether these classes have complete objects and whether optimal proof systems may exist.
- H. Buhrman, S. A. Fenner, L. Fortnow, and D. van Melkebeek. Optimal proof systems and sparse sets. In Horst Reichel and Sophie Tison, editors, STACS, volume 1770 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 407--418. Springer, 2000. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- C. Bennett and J. Gill. Relative to a random oracle A, PA 6= NPA 6= co-NPA with probability 1. SIAM Journal on Computing, 10(1):96--113, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Baker, J. Gill, and R. Solovay. Relativizations of the P=NP problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 4:431--442, 1975.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Book, T. Long, and A. Selman. Quantitative relativizations of complexity classes. SIAM Journal on Computing, 13(3):461--487, 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jin-yi Cai, Venkatesan T. Chakaravarthy, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, and Mitsunori Ogihara. Competing provers yield improved Karp-Lipton collapse results. Inf. Comput., 198(1):1--23, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. A. Cook and R. A. Reckhow. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. J. Symb. Log., 44(1):36--50, 1979.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Even, A. L. Selman, and Y. Yacobi. The complexity of promise problems with applications to public-key cryptography. Information and Control, 61(2):159--173, May 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. Goldreich. On promise problems: A survey. In O. Goldreich, A. L. Rosenberg, and A. L. Selman, editors, Essays in Memory of Shimon Even, volume 3895 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 254--290. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Grollmann and A. L. Selman. Complexity measures for public-key cryptosystems. SIAM J. Comput., 17(2):309--335, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Glaßer, A. L. Selman, and S. Sengupta. Reductions between disjoint NP-pairs. Inf. Comput., 200(2):247--267, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Glaßer, A. L. Selman, S. Sengupta, and L. Zhang. Disjoint NP-pairs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 33(6):1369--1416, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Glaßer, A. L. Selman, and L. Zhang. Canonical disjoint NP-pairs of propositional proof systems. Theor. Comput. Sci., 370(1-3):60--73, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Glaßer and G. Wechsung. Relativizing function classes. J. UCS, 9(1):34--50, 2003.Google Scholar
- J. Hartmanis and L. Hemachandra. Complexity classes without machines: On complete languages for UP. Theoretical Computer Science, 58(1{3):129--142, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Hartmanis and N. Immerman. On complete problems for NP∩TcoNP. In Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 250--259. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science #194, July 1985. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. A. Hemaspaandra, A. V. Naik, M. Ogihara, and A. L. Selman. Computing solutions uniquely collapses the polynomial hierarchy. SIAM Journal on Computing, 25:697--708, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Hughes, A. Pavan, N. Russell, and A. L. Selman. A thirty year old conjecture about promise problems. In Artur Czumaj, Kurt Mehlhorn, Andrew M. Pitts, and Roger Wattenhofer, editors, International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, volume 7391 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 473--484. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
- S. C. Kleene. A symmetric form of Gödel's theorem. In Proceedings of the section of sciences, volume 12 of Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, pages 800--802. Springer Verlag, 1950.Google Scholar
- J. Köbler and J. Meßner. Is the standard proof system for SAT P-optimal? In Sanjiv Kapoor and Sanjiva Prasad, editors, Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS), volume 1974 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 361--372. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Köbler, J. Meßner, and J. Torán. Optimal proof systems imply complete sets for promise classes. Inf. Comput., 184(1):71--92, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Kowalczyk. Some connections between representability of complexity classes and the power of formal reasoning systems. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, pages 364--369. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science #176, 1984. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Krajček and P. Pudlák. Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first order theories and the complexity of computations. J. Symb. Log., 54(3):1063--1079, 1989.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Ladner. On the structure of polynomial-time reducibility. Journal of the ACM, 22:155--171, 1975. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Lovász. On the Shannon capacity of a graph. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 25(1):1--7, 1979. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. N. Luzin. Leçons sur les ensembles analytiques et leurs applications. Gauthier- Villars, 1930.Google Scholar
- A. V. Naik, J. D. Rogers, J. S. Royer, and A. L. Selman. A hierarchy based on output multiplicity. Theor. Comput. Sci., 207(1):131--157, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Pudlák. On reducibility and symmetry of disjoint NP-pairs. Theoretical Computer Science, 295:323--339, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Rackoff. Relativized questions involving probabilistic algorithms. J. ACM, 29(1):261--268, 1982. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. A. Razborov. On provably disjoint NP-pairs. Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC), 1(6), 1994.Google Scholar
- K. Regan. On diagonalization methods and the structure of language classes. In Proceedings Foundations of Computation Theory, volume 158 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 368--380. Springer Verlag, 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Regan. The topology of provability in complexity theory. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 36:384--432, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. A. Robinson. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM, 12(1):23--41, 1965. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Rogers Jr. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Schöning. A uniform approach to obtain diagonal sets in complexity classes. Theoretical Computer Science, 18:95--103, 1982.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. L. Selman. A taxonomy of complexity classes of functions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 48(2):357--381, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Shoenfield. Degrees of formal systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23:389--392, 1958.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Shoenfield. Degrees of models. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 25(3):233--237, 1960.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Sipser. On relativization and the existence of complete sets. In Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 523--531. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science #140, July 1982. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. M. Smullyan. Undecidability and recursive inseparability. Zeitschr. f. math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math., 4:143--147, 1958.Google Scholar
- E. Tardos. The gap between monotone and non-monotone circuit complexity is exponential. Combinatorica, 8(1):141--142, 1988.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Trakhtenbrot. On recursive separability. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 88:953--955, 1953.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Disjoint NP-Pairs and Propositional Proof Systems
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Canonical disjoint NP-pairs of propositional proof systems
We prove that every disjoint NP-pair is polynomial-time, many-one equivalent to the canonical disjoint NP-pair of some propositional proof system. Therefore, the degree structure of the class of disjoint NP-pairs and of all canonical pairs is identical. ...
Canonical disjoint NP-Pairs of propositional proof systems
MFCS'05: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Mathematical Foundations of Computer ScienceWe prove that every disjoint NP-pair is polynomial-time, many-one equivalent to the canonical disjoint NP-pair of some propositional proof system. Therefore, the degree structure of the class of disjoint NP-pairs and of all canonical pairs is identical. ...
Disjoint NP-pairs from propositional proof systems
TAMC'06: Proceedings of the Third international conference on Theory and Applications of Models of ComputationFor a proof system P we introduce the complexity class DNPP(P) of all disjoint NP-pairs for which the disjointness of the pair is efficiently provable in the proof system P. We exhibit structural properties of proof systems which make the previously ...
Comments